Evidence Hub

Incidence and mortality in upper gastrointestinal cancer after negative endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Dag Holmberg, G. Santoni, My Catarina von Euler-Chelpin, M. Färkkilä, J. Kauppila, J. Maret-Ouda, E. Ness-Jensen, J. Lagergren

Gastroenterology, 2021

1,062,740 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is associated with an increased risk of cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to assess whether and to what extent a negative upper endoscopy in patients with GERD is associated with a decreased incidence and mortality in upper gastrointestinal cancer (esophageal, gastric, or duodenal cancer).

METHODS

Population-based cohort study of all patients with newly diagnosed GERD between July 1, 1979 and December 31, 2018 in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The exposure, negative upper endoscopy, was examined as a time-varying exposure, where participants contributed unexposed person-time from GERD diagnosis until screened and exposed person-time from the negative upper endoscopy. The incidence and mortality in upper gastrointestinal cancer were assessed using parametric flexible models, providing adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Among 1,062,740 patients with GERD (median age 58 years; 52% women) followed for mean 7.0 person-years, 5,324 (0.5%) developed upper gastrointestinal cancer and 4,465 (0.4%) died from such cancer. Patients who had undergone a negative upper endoscopy had 55% decreased risk of upper gastrointestinal cancer compared to those who did not undergo endoscopy (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.43-0.48), a decrease which was more pronounced during more recent years (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.30-0.38 from 2008 onwards), and was otherwise stable over sex and age…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,062,740 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free